Anupam Garg vs The District Judge Office Of ...
2010 Latest Caselaw 2786 Del

*          HIGH COURT OF DELHI : NEW DELHI

+                     W.P. (C) No.3467/2010

%                                 Decided on : 26th May, 2010

Anupam Garg                                        ......Petitioner
                      Through: Mr. Rajeev Saxena with Mr. R.K. Bedi, Advs.

                      Versus

The District Judge Office of District Sessions Judge .....Respondent
                      Through: Ms. Avnish Ahlawat, Adv.


Coram:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH

1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may
   be allowed to see the judgment?                       No

2. To be referred to Reporter or not?                    Yes

3. Whether the judgment should be reported               Yes
   in the Digest?

MANMOHAN SINGH, J. (Oral)

1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition under Article

226 of the Constitution of India seeking direction against the respondent

to recall/modify the result of candidates selected for interview for LDC

Recruitment Test, 2009.

2. The petitioner is currently pursuing his graduate studies in

B.A. Political Science (Honours) from Satyawati College, University of

Delhi, and has appeared for the final examination of Second Year. The

petitioner has obtained 72% in his Senior Secondary Examination and

has currently secured an aggregate of 57% in his graduate studies.

3. The respondent had by way of public notification advertised

for filling up the vacancies of Lower Division Clerk in the pay-scale of

Rs.3050-4590/- pre-revised as per the terms and directions detailed in

the notification.

4. The petitioner has given the detail of notification allegedly

advertised for filling up vacancies. The learned counsel for the

respondent has placed a photocopy of the relevant page of the

Employment News dated 11.12.2009. Learned counsel for the petitioner

has no objection if the same is considered by this Court. The mode of

selections is given in the said notification as under:

Mode of Selection Selection shall be made on the basis of Written Test examination comprising of one paper in English language (Essay, Grammar and translation from English to Hindi and vice-versa). The candidates, who will be declared qualified in English language paper will be called to appear for typing test @ 30 w.p.m. in English.

The short listed candidate would also undergo an interview (The candidates will have to arrange their own Type Writers for taking the test)

5. Pursuant to the said advertisement, the petitioner applied for

the said post and was issued Roll No. 5159 vide letter dated 11.2.2010

by the respondent for a written test which was scheduled for 7.3.2010.

The petitioner qualified the written test with 93% marks as per the result

declared on 12.4.2010.

6. After having been declared successful in the examination, the

petitioner received intimation for the purpose of a typing test for the

recruitment of post of LDC which was to be held on 25.4.2010.

7. The petitioner appeared in the said typing test and obtained

20 marks and his result of the said typing test was shown at Serial

No.109. However, his name did not figure in the list of candidates called

for interview despite the petitioner having secured 93 marks out of 100

in the written test examination and 20 marks out of 30 in the typing test

for which as per initial information averred by the petitioner, the bench

mark was set at 20 out of 30 marks. Admittedly, the bench mark/ cut off

set by the respondent to be called for an interview was 20 marks in

typing test with 45% in the written test.

8. According to the petitioner, the respondent has changed the

criteria for selecting candidates for interview by changing the cut off

marks from 20 out of 30.

9. The main contention of the petitioner during the course of

arguments was that the said change of criteria in the post-examination

period is illegal as no reasons have been given by the respondent for

such a change. There ought to have been no change in the selection

criteria especially without assigning any reason thereto as selection

criteria once finalised cannot be changed once notification in that regard

has already been published. It is argued that a mere perusal of list of

candidates who have been called for interview would show that many

candidates with lower marks in written examination than that of the

petitioner have been invited for interview for the appointment of LDC.

10. According to the petitioner, the respondent has changed the

criteria for selecting the candidates for interview by changing the cut off

rate to 22 marks out of 30 marks for typing text against the initially

decided cut off rate of 20 marks out of 30 marks. His grievance is that

despite having obtained 93% marks in the written examination and 20

out of 30 marks in the typing test he has not been called for an interview

and therefore, the conduct of the respondent is illegal, unlawful and

arbitrary.

11. In support of his submissions, the petitioner has referred the

judgment of Hemani Malhotra vs. High Court of Delhi, 2008 AIR 9SC

2103 wherein the Supreme Court in paragraph 9 observed as under:

"9. From the proposition of law laid down by this court in the above mentioned case it is evident that previous procedure was not to have any minimum marks for vive- voce. Therefore, prescribing minimum marks for vive-voce was not permissible at all after written test was conduced. There is no manner of doubt that the authority making rules regulating the selection can prescribe by rules the minimum marks both for written examination and vive-voce, but if minimum marks are not prescribed for vive-voce before the commencement of selection process, the authority concerned, cannot either during the selection process or after the selection process add an additional requirement/qualification that the candidate should also secure minimum marks in the interview. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that prescription of minimum marks by the respondent at vive-voce, test was illegal."

12. The respondent has filed the short affidavit of Sh. Durga

Prasad, Superintendent Administration Branch, Office of District Judge-

I & Sessions Judge, Delhi.

13. Admittedly, in order to judge the suitability of the candidates

in the typing test, the procedure as prescribed in Annexure R-1 was

followed which reads as under:

"Practice which may be followed for checking answer sheets of Type Test for LDC Recruitment Test 2009 in the office of District & Sessions Judge, Delhi. A passage for about 300 words has been given to the candidates to be typed in ten minutes. If he falls short of the said passage, number of words by which answer sheet

falls short may be taken as mistake and one mark may be deducted for three mistakes. The maximum marks are 30 out of which minimum qualifying marks are 20. If the candidate repeats the passage, he may be given one additional mark for every ten words typed by him. While checking one mark may be deducted for every three mistakes. Mistakes also include punctuation, spelling error."

14. It appears from Annexure R-1 that a candidate who qualifies

the typing test with 20 marks would be called for the interview but

admittedly in the last three times, the last cut off reached 22 marks for

General and SC category and other category at 20 marks. Therefore, it

is apparent that the petitioner was not called for interview.

15. It is not denied by the petitioner that as per the result, there

are many candidates who have secured 93 to 98 marks but have not been

called for the interview. Similarly the petitioner has not pointed out the

detail of a single candidate in the selection process who obtained similar

marks i.e. 20 marks or lesser than those of the petitioner and was still

called for the interview.

16. As per notification, passing the typing test was necessary for

LDC candidates irrespective of the fact that a candidate secured high

marks in written test. As per procedure, if the candidate does not come

within cut off marks set for the typing test, he is not eligible.

Admittedly, between 20 to 21.5 marks there are 139 candidates who

have not been called for interview as they did not achieve the target of

cut off marks of passing of typing test.

17. The selection process was of three stages : stage one was

written examination; stage two the candidates qualifying the English

language paper were to appear for the typing test @ 30 words per

minute in English and the third stage wherein the shortlisted candidates

who passed the typing test were to be called for interview.

18. As per the advertisement for filling up the vacancies and

eligibility criteria for recruitment, candidates with minimum qualifying

marks of 45% for general category and 40% for reserved categories in

written examination were to be called for the typing test and three times

were to be called for the interview. Undisputedly, in the three times

vacancies the last cut off reached 22 marks for general category in

which the petitioner applied for the post. Thus, it appears that cut off

criteria for interview as adopted by the respondent was in compliance

with the terms mentioned in the „Term C‟ of the advertisement.

19. Ms. Avnish Ahlawat, learned counsel for the respondent has

pointed out that as per selection criteria, the typing test of 30 words per

minute was taken by the petitioner but after the test it was found that

there were many mistakes in the typing test and he was only able to

obtain 20 marks which was below the cut off mark, hence question of

arbitrariness does not arise.

20. After having gone through the entire gamut of the matter, this

Court does not find itself agreeing with the submissions of the petitioner

that the respondent changed the selection criteria rather, it is evident

from the paragraph stating the mode of selection that the shortlisted

candidates were also to undergo an interview after the publication of the

notification. A plain reading of mode of selection shows that the typing

test @ 30 words per minute in English was conducted by the respondent

as regards the candidates who qualified the written test examination and

the candidates who qualified in the typing test were called for interview

as per the shortlisting on the basis of marks obtained in the typing test.

Therefore, it is apparent that the selection criteria as it appeared in the

notification has been not changed after the advertisement against the

principle of equity and transparency. The submission of the learned

counsel for the petitioner has no force in view of the reasons mentioned

above. The decision referred hence does not help the case of the

petitioner as the facts in the present case are entirely different.

21. There is no merit in the petition, the same is dismissed with

no orders as to cost. The interim application also stands disposed of.

Copy of this order be given dasti under the signatures of the

Court Master.

MANMOHAN SINGH, J.

May 26, 2010 jk